Category: Out of the shadows
Must Watch, Our Shadow Government
Nuremberg Trials Coming; Former Twitter Employees Called out by Congress; Doctor Charged for Doing No Harm; No longer Trust any Vaccine; Swiss President under Investigation; Corruption of the FBI; European Commission in bed with Big Pharma; Sex Explicit Materials in Our Schools
Nuremberg Trials Coming
Former Twitter Employees Called out by Congress
Doctor Charged for Doing No Harm
No longer Trust any Vaccine
Swiss President under investigation for the Mandatory Jab
Corruption of the FBI
European Commission in bed with big Pharma
Sex explicit materials in Our Schools programming our Children
More Than 217,000 Americans Killed by the COVID Jab: Medical Marijuana; Nature Is Free Medicine for Many Chronic Diseases, 1 Way Enhances Healing Effects; Supreme Court No. 22-380
More Than 217,000 Americans Killed by the COVID Jab: Survey Estimate
You’ll never guess how many have been killed or seriously injured in just the first year. Yet, the FDA and CDC keep pushing the shots, despite their own trial data showing they have no benefit in terms of reducing your risk of hospitalization or death.
- According to a December 2021 survey of 2,840 Americans, between 217,330 and 332,608 people died from the COVID jabs in 2021.
- Survey results also show that people who got the jab were more likely to know someone who experienced a health problem from COVID-19 infection, whereas those who knew someone who experienced a health problem after getting the jab were less likely to be jabbed.
- Of the respondents, 34 percent knew one or more people who had experienced a significant health problem due to the COVID-19 illness, and 22 percent knew one or more people who had been injured by the shot.
- Fifty-one percent of the survey respondents had been jabbed. Of those, 13 percent reported experiencing a “serious” health problem post-jab. Compare that to Pfizer’s six-month safety analysis, which claimed only 1.2 percent of trial participants experienced a serious adverse event.
- In December 2022, Rasmussen Reports polled 1,000 Americans. In this poll, 34 percent reported experiencing minor side effects from the jab and seven percent reported major side effects.
While it’s clear that the experimental COVID shots have killed a considerable number of people, the total death toll remains elusive, thanks to U.S. health agencies obfuscating, hiding, and manipulating data.
That said, the most recent survey1,2—published in the peer-reviewed journal BMC Infectious Diseases—puts the death toll from the COVID jabs somewhere between 217,330 and 332,608 in 2021 alone. As noted by Steve Kirsch:3
“[We’ve] killed at least 217,000 Americans and seriously injured 33 million … in just the first year, and the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] and FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] want to give you more shots … Since deaths from the vaccine were higher in 2022, most experts would estimate the all-cause mortality death toll from the COVID vaccines to be in the range of 500K to 600K.
“So the global cost of life from these vaccines is on the order of 10 to 12 million people … These [data] are consistent with the numbers I’ve been saying for a long time. It’s not a coincidence.”
Survey: Why People Did or Did Not Get the Jab
Now, the slant of this paper is kind of interesting. The primary aim of it was to “identify the factors associated by American citizens with the decision to be vaccinated against COVID-19.”
The author was curious about why 31 percent of the U.S. population had declined the jab or not completed the primary series by November 2022, nearly two years into a massively advertised “vaccination” campaign.
Calculating the proportion of fatal events from the jab was secondary. As explained by the author, Mark Skidmore,4 Ph.D., an economics professor at Michigan State University:5
“A largely unexplored factor is the degree to which serious health problems arising from the COVID-19 illness or the COVID-19 vaccines among family and friends influences the decision to be vaccinated.
“Serious illness due to COVID-19 would make vaccination more likely; the perceived benefits of avoiding COVID-19 through inoculation would be higher.
“On the other hand, observing major health issues following COVID-19 inoculation within one’s social network would heighten the perceived risks of vaccination. Previous studies have not evaluated the degree to which experiences with the disease and vaccine injury influence vaccine status.
“The main aim of this online survey of COVID-19 health experiences is to investigate the degree to which the COVID-19 disease and COVID-19 vaccine adverse events among friends and family, whether perceived or real, influenced inoculation decisions. The second aim of this work is to estimate the total number of COVID-19 vaccine-induced fatalities nationwide from the survey.”
Here’s an excerpt describing the methodology:6
“An online survey of COVID-19 health experiences was conducted. Information was collected regarding reasons for and against COVID-19 inoculations, experiences with COVID-19 illness, and COVID-19 inoculations by survey respondents and their social circles. Logit regression analyses were carried out to identify factors influencing the likelihood of being vaccinated.”
A total of 2,840 people completed the survey between Dec. 18 and Dec. 23, 2021. The mean age was 47, and the gender ratio was 51 percent women, 49 percent men. Just over half, 51 percent, had received one or more COVID jabs.
As Skidmore suspected, results showed that people who got the jab were more likely to know someone who experienced a health problem from COVID-19 infection, whereas those who knew someone who experienced a health problem after getting the jab were less likely to be jabbed.
Of the respondents, 34 percent knew one or more people who had experienced a significant health problem due to the COVID-19 illness, and 22 percent knew one or more people who had been injured by the shot. So, as noted by to the author:7
“Knowing someone who reported serious health issues either from COVID-19 or from COVID-19 vaccination are important factors for the decision to get vaccinated.”
As for the types of side effects experienced by people within the respondents’ social circles, they included (but were not limited to) the “usual suspects,” such as:
- Heart and cardiovascular problems.
- Severe COVID infection or other respiratory illness.
- Feeling generally unwell, weak, fatigued, and out of breath for weeks.
- Blood clots and stroke.
Hundreds of Thousands Killed for No Reason
“… the total number of fatalities due to COVID-19 inoculation may be as high as 278,000 (95 percent CI 217,330-332,608) when fatalities that may have occurred regardless of inoculation are removed.”
Were COVID-19 an infection with an extremely high mortality rate, perhaps high rates of death from a vaccine would be acceptable. But COVID-19 has an exceptionally low mortality rate, on par with or lower than influenza, hence the risk associated with the COVID jabs ought to be equally low.
The global cost of life from these vaccines is on the order of 10 to 12 million people.
As it stands, the risks of the shots are very high, while Pfizer’s own trial data, with more than 40,000 participants, show they offer no benefit in terms of your risk of hospitalization and/or death. The absolute risk reduction is so minute as to be inconsequential.8
High Rates of Side Effects
The death toll from the jabs isn’t the only disturbing part of this paper, though. Skidmore’s findings also suggest side effects from the jab may be more common than previously suspected.
As mentioned, 51 percent of the respondents had been jabbed. Of those, 15 percent reported experiencing a new health problem post-jab and 13 percent deemed it “serious.” Compare that to Pfizer’s six-month safety analysis,9 which claimed only 1.2 percent of trial participants reported a serious adverse event.
Now, as suggested by Kirsch,10 “we need to discount that by a factor of two because people report less severe adverse events as adverse events.” Still, that means serious adverse events from the jab are five times higher than what Pfizer reported.
“This is why the FDA never does after-market surveys on the drugs it approves. Because reality hurts,” Kirsch writes.11 “It is the FDA that should have discovered this before Mark Skidmore. The FDA is asleep at the wheel and they just believe everything the drug companies tell them, hook, line, and sinker. This is a major miss. Why aren’t they doing surveys like this to see if the reality matches the study?”
More Side Effect Rate Comparisons
For additional comparison, here are the findings of several other investigations:
- Rasmussen Reports12: In December 2022, Rasmussen Reports polled 1,000 Americans. In this poll—taken one year after Skidmore’s survey—34 percent reported experiencing minor side effects from the jab and seven percent reported major side effects.
- CDC’s V-Safe data13: In October 2022, ICAN [Informed Consent Action Network] obtained the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s V-Safe data. This is a voluntary program to monitor adverse vaccine reactions. Of the 10.1 million COVID jab recipients who used the app, 7.7 percent had to seek medical care post-jab.
- Kirsch-funded survey14: A June 2022 U.S. survey by the market research company Pollfish found that 16.3 percent of COVID jabbed respondents experienced an injury, and 9.7 percent required medical care.
The graphic below, which visually compares Skidmore’s findings to the findings of the Rasmussen, V-Safe, and Pollfish surveys, was created by InfoGame on Substack.15 As noted by InfoGame:
“Skidmore’s article serves as another sign that the rate of COVID-19 side effects is extremely high and that the COVID-19 vaccines are an unprecedently risky medical product.”
Menstrual Irregularities Are Common Post-Jab
While we’re on the topic of reported side effects, several surveys have also focused on the frequency of abnormal menses in women who got the jab, which could be indicative of reproductive harm. For example:
- A British survey published in early December 2021 found 20 percent of women experienced menstrual disturbances following their jab.16
- A study published in Science Advances in mid-July 2022 found 66 percent of “fully vaccinated” postmenopausal women experienced abnormal breakthrough bleeding. In total, 42.1 percent reported heavier menstrual flow post-jab (this included women of all ages, as well as transgenders on hormone treatments).17
- An Italian peer-reviewed study published in March 2022 found that “50-60 percent of reproductive-age women who received the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine reported menstrual cycle irregularities, regardless of the type of administered vaccine.” After the second dose, abnormal menses were reported by 60 percent to 70 percent.18
People in High Places Seek Retraction
Not surprisingly, people in high places are already trying to force a retraction of the paper. A special notice from the editor, dated just two days post-publication, states:
“Readers are alerted that the conclusions of this paper are subject to criticisms that are being considered by editors. Specifically, that the claims are unsubstantiated and that there are questions about the quality of the peer review.”
As noted by Kirsch:19
“They are actively trying to get the paper retracted because it destroys the narrative. I’m certain they will succeed because journals are under intense pressure to censor any anti-narrative paper. The problem is that Mark’s survey was entirely consistent with my surveys.
“If they want to have the paper retracted they need to show us THEIR surveys. But of course, they don’t have any surveys because they are too afraid of the results.
“So they will use hand-waving arguments like “I don’t like the methodology” or some nonsense like that instead of gathering their own data. They will NEVER show us survey data that supports their narrative because it isn’t there.
“That’s why there are no success anecdotes. NOBODY can give me the name of a U.S. geriatric practice where all-cause deaths plummeted after the vaccines rolled out. In every case, they went the wrong way. The narrative is unraveling at an accelerated pace but the medical community is still fighting the truth.”
Originally published Feb. 07, 2023, on Mercola.com
◇ Sources and References
- 1, 5, 6, 7 BMC Infectious Diseases 2023; 23 article number 51
- 2 Jean Marc Benoit MD Substack Jan. 24, 2023
- 3, 10, 11, 19 Steve Kirsch Substack Jan. 25, 2023
- 4 Michigan State University Mark Skidmore
- 8 Steve Kirsch Substack Jan. 24, 2023
- 9 NEJM Nov. 4, 2021; 385: 1761-1773
- 12 Rasmussen Reports Dec. 7, 2022
- 13 ICANdecide.org Oct. 3, 2022
- 14 SKirsch.com July 1, 2022
- 15 Infogame Substack Jan. 25, 2023
- 16 MedRxiv Dec. 6, 2021
- 17 Science Advances July 15, 2022; 8(28)
- 18 Open Med March 9, 2022; 17(1): 475-484
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times. Epoch Health welcomes professional discussion and friendly debate. To submit an opinion piece, please follow these guidelines and submit through our form here.
Nature Is Free Medicine for Many Chronic Diseases, 1 Way Enhances Healing Effects
If you don’t know where to go on vacation, there is no harm in getting in touch with nature. Not only does it relieve stress, but it may also help reduce the need for prescription medications for conditions like high blood pressure and asthma. It’s best to take off your shoes and step on the grass with your bare feet—you may gain some unexpected benefits.
Green Space Is Free Medicine, Can Improve Many Chronic Diseases
Do you like green spaces? The British Medical Journal published a two-year study in Finland that revealed that frequent visits to green spaces such as forests, gardens, parks, and meadows can help people reduce the use of prescription medication for depression, insomnia, high blood pressure, and asthma. These medicines are mainly used to treat common and potentially serious health problems.
The study analyzed about 7,300 people, and the results found that compared with those who visited green spaces less than once a week, those who visited green spaces three to four times a week were 33 percent less likely to use psychotropic medication, 36 percent less likely to use antihypertensive medication, and 26 percent less likely to use asthma medication.
Exposure to natural environments is widely believed to be beneficial for human health, and this study actually provides another piece of evidence. Dr. Gyaltsen Lobsang, a preventive medicine expert and director of Dr. Lobsang Preventive Medicare Clinic, said that he often encourages people to go into the forest; this advice is even included in his “prescription” because nature has so many health benefits to offer.
1. Reduce chronic inflammation
Plants release a lot of oxygen and produce a lot of bioactive substances during photosynthesis, which helps you resist oxidation and reduce chronic inflammation.
Many people suffer from chronic inflammatory conditions. When the cells in the body do not get enough oxygen, the hypoxic cells will emit “reactive oxygen species,” which can damage cells and organs, resulting in body oxidation and chronic inflammation. Chronic inflammation will then lead to weakened immunity, making it difficult for the body to fight against foreign viruses and bacteria.
Hypoxemia (insufficient oxygen in the body) can be caused by environmental, physiological, and pathological factors. Lobsang pointed out that symptoms such as muscle stiffness, poor sleep, and dizziness may indicate a lack of oxygen in the body.
2. Boost immunity and prevent cancer
People can also breathe in phytoncides when they are in green spaces, especially forests. Phytoncides, also known as “exterminators of the plant,” are chemicals that plants release into the air with antimicrobial properties to protect themselves from insects.
A study found that the activity of natural killer (NK) cells in the body increased by about 50 percent after people breathed in phytoncides while walking in nature. These cells can kill tumor cells and virus-infected cells in the body.
Lobsang believes that the air in the forest can help cleanse the lungs. Therefore, he will ask patients, especially lung cancer patients, to get in touch with nature, preferably in areas with forests, at least two to three times a month.
4. Relieve stress, improve mood, and regulate autonomic nervous system
A natural environment filled with plants promotes the relaxation of the body and mind. The director of Lohasiinfra Clinic in Taiwan, Shih-Heng Chang pointed out that there are more sounds in the forest than at the seaside, such as the chirping of insects and birds, and the sound of the wind. These sounds are called white noise, and they can block out real noise, helping to relieve stress, and are more relaxing than total silence.
Studies have also found that forest landscapes can reduce psychological stress and mental fatigue, and induce positive emotions, thereby improving anxiety, depression, and anger. This has preventive and therapeutic effects on depression. At the same time, forest bathing also helps to reduce stress hormones such as adrenaline and cortisol, thus relieving people’s stress.
Stress is also closely related to autonomic nervous system disorders; forest bathing can increase the activity of the parasympathetic nerves and reduce the activity of the sympathetic nerves, allowing the autonomic nervous system to return to a stable and balanced state. Consequently, sleep quality can also be improved.
5. Lower blood pressure and manage diabetes
Studies have found that the forest environment can effectively lower blood pressure, reduce pulse rate, and improve cardiac-pulmonary and metabolic functions, which can help improve the quality of life of pre-hypertensive or hypertensive patients.
Speculated reasons why forests may reduce blood pressure include the positive effects of phytoncides on the body, and the modulating effect of the forest environment on the autonomic nervous system.
Walking in a forest environment increases adiponectin, which helps lower blood glucose levels in diabetic patients. High levels of adiponectin have been linked to resistance to diabetes, weight loss, and the prevention of atherosclerosis.
5. Manage ADHD and improve concentration
In addition to improving concentration in the general population, natural environments can also enhance attention in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). A walk in the park is sufficient to elevate concentration in children with ADHD.
Lobsang also found in his clinical treatment that the symptoms of 80 to 90 percent of children with ADHD or autism can be gradually improved when the children are exposed to nature.
6. Manage asthma and improve lung function
Asthma has been linked to exposure to air pollution. For children with allergic diseases such as asthma, exposure to a forest environment can help improve symptoms. A study published in the European Respiratory Journal showed that children who grew up with increased exposure to green spaces had improved respiratory health and often had better lung function.
Lobsang believes that plants are very effective in purifying the air, saying that “plants are the best air purifiers.” He pointed out that many studies have found that simply having a lot of plants (such as sansevieria) indoors can help clean the air.
7. Improve eye health
Looking at a green environment after intense eye use can relax the eyes. Chang explained that green light’s wavelength can relax the eye muscles. The eyes will directly affect the brain, and the discomfort of the eyes will cause pain in the head. Computer vision syndrome refers to the discomfort in the eyes caused by prolonged viewing of the computer, which will extend to the brain, resulting in symptoms such as headache and nausea.
Take off Your Shoes and Perform ‘Earthing’ to Increase Natural Healing Power
When walking into green spaces, it is best to take off your shoes if possible, and step barefoot on grass, dirt, and sand to perform “earthing,” as doing so allows you to receive nature’s medicine—electrons from the Earth’s surface.
Scientist Clint Ober discovered the health benefits of earthing by accident. In his book “Earthing,” co-authored with Dr. Stephen Sinatra and others, it is stated that people live on an electrified planet and live an electrified life—the heart, brain, muscles, nervous system, and immune system are all dynamic electric circuits. The purpose of earthing is to connect the weak current on the surface of the earth with the physiological current of the human botos to restore the body’s electrical balance.
Numerous studies have now documented the many benefits of going barefoot on the ground, including reduced chronic inflammation, pain and stress, improved blood flow, vitality and sleep, enhanced wound healing, and the prevention and treatment of autoimmune diseases.
A case study (pdf) by the International Academy of Clinical Thermography mentioned that an 85-year-old man with severe inflammation and chronic pain woke up stiff and sore every day, and his pain completely disappeared after four weeks of earthing therapy.
Earthing can also speed up the healing of difficult-to-heal wounds in diabetic patients and relieve wound pain.
To maximize the benefits of performing earthing to the body, going barefoot for as little as 30 or 40 minutes daily can significantly reduce pain and stress.
Lobsang said that the body is the structure of energy, and earthing can not only release bad energy from the body, but also massage the soles of the feet at the same time. There are many acupoints on the soles of the feet, such as the Yong Quan acupoint, which is an excellent acupoint for relieving stress, stabilizing emotions, and improving sleep. Additionally, the stimulation of the sole muscles can promote microcirculation.
Lobstang brings his patients to places with clean grass for earthing. In particular, grass that has been exposed to the sun is best. However, people with wounds on the soles of the feet, especially diabetics, have to be careful; they should avoid earthing when there are wounds on the soles of the feet.
In addition, traditional Chinese medicine believes in the concept of the unity of man and nature, and earthing is in line with the concept. Wu Kuo-pin, superintendent of Taiwan Xinyitang Heart Clinic, said that the ground is a part of the Earth (in the Five Elements); the Earth element is associated with the spleen and stomach, and the spleen and stomach are part of the digestive system in traditional Chinese medicine. People can strengthen their spleen and stomach by performing earthing and absorbing the qi of the Earth element. The immune system will improve as the function of the spleen and stomach improves.
Kuo-pin once heard of a case in which a cancer patient recovered from cancer by walking barefoot in the mountains. He emphasized that the energies of the human body, the Earth, and the universe are inherently interconnected. Stepping on the ground with bare feet can adjust the energy of the body, which is beneficial to overall well-being.
Loy Brunson speaks about case Supreme Court No. 22-380. Feb. 17, 2023 Conference date
This case could change the course of our country and the world. Loy Brunson explaining the power of the people.
Loy Brunson’s Website: https://7discoveries.com
Brunson Brothers Website: https://brunsonbrothers.com
Truth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@OfficialBrunsonBrothersSCOTUS
Great Interview; Re-truth; Know Your Rights; Houston Medical Staff Fired for Not Taking the Jab Speak; Geo-Engineering is Part of the Swamp
WEBERZ REPORT – W/ LINDSEY GRAHAM AKA PATRIOT BARBIE
Know your rights
Houston Medical Staff Fired for not taking the Jab speak.
Geo-Engineering is part of the swamp
Law of One
11.18 Questioner: Then we have crusaders from Orion coming to this planet for mind control purposes. How do they do this?
Ra: As all, they follow the Law of One observing free will. Contact is made with those who call. Those then upon the planetary sphere act much as do you to disseminate the attitudes and philosophy of their particular understanding of the Law of One which is service to self. These become the elite. Through these, the attempt begins to create a condition whereby the remainder of the planetary entities are enslaved by their own free will.
16.17 Questioner: What was their purpose in doing this?
Ra: I am Ra. The purpose of the Orion group, as mentioned before, is conquest and enslavement. This is done by finding and establishing an elite and causing others to serve the elite through various devices such as the laws you mention and others given by this entity.
18.21 Questioner: Why did they want larger and stronger organisms?
More Fake News Exposed; Families are Being Paid Off by Big Pharma for Vaccine Deaths; World News from Australia with Riccardo Bosi; Save the Children
Brainwashed Drones, Damar Hamlin, Fake Scientists and Government Shills – OAN Alison Steinberg
People are being paid off by big pharma for the vaccine deaths of family members.
World News from Australia.
Really horrifying events and stories coming out of the Northern Territory. As the Australian government funnels hundreds of millions in cash and assets to the Ukraine, our own country is being ripped apart from within as child rapists walk the streets.
What an absolute national disgrace “Rachel Hale has spoken out about confronting incidents of child abuse she witnessed first-hand while working in the public health system in Alice Springs as the territory and federal government grapple with how to handle a crime wave plaguing the town.”
Save the Children
Law of One
42.12 Questioner: In the last session you said, “the self, if conscious to a great enough extent of the workings of the catalyst of fasting, and the techniques of programming, may through concentration of the will and the faculty of faith alone cause reprogramming without the analogy of fasting, diet, or other analogous body complex disciplines.” What are the techniques of programming which the higher self uses to ensure that the desired lessons are learned or attempted by the third-density self in our third-density incarnational laboratory?
Ra: I am Ra. There is but one technique for this growing or nurturing of will and faith, and that is the focusing of the attention. The attention span of those you call children is considered short. The spiritual attention span of most of your peoples is that of the child. Thus it is a matter of wishing to become able to collect one’s attention and hold it upon the desired programming.
This, when continued, strengthens the will. The entire activity can only occur when there exists faith that an outcome of this discipline is possible.
RFK Jr. Details the Vaccine Manufacturers’ Stunning Admission; Blood Clots from The Vaccine; International Crimes Investigative Committee; Cancer Cure; What is in Our Food
RFK Jr. Details the Vaccine Manufacturers’ Stunning Admission of Causing Injury & Harm
Each of the 405 diseases that have become epidemic since 1989 is listed as a side effect in the vaccine inserts. Autism is among those diseases listed.
“The Federal law says that they’re not allowed to list anything on that manufacturer’s insert unless [the] FDA determines that it is likely that the vaccine caused that injury.”
Brought to you by Pfizer
The next episode of ☀️ICIC – International Crimes Investigative Committee with: Dr. Claus Köhnlein, Dr. Hans-Joachim Maaz & Samuel Eckert
NEW – John Kerry says, “we select group of human beings” are talking about “saving the planet” at the World Economic Forum.
The Cancer Cure drug that was suppressed.
Our Next Soul Level; Doctor Admits 99% Intubates Patients Died; MHRA Report Card; Mammogram Risks
Doctor Admits 99% Intubates Patients Died
It’s never been about health or a cure…its about big pharma and hospitals scheming for profit. This doctor calls it “politics.”
If a hospital admits a COVID-19 patient, they get paid $13k.
If that COVID-19 patient goes on a ventilator, the hospital gets paid $39k—three times as much.
While HCQ is better known, has fewer side-effects, and costs about $20 a dose for out-patients, Remdesivir is a therapeutic course that costs $2,340/patient that has been proven to cause liver damage. Being intravenous, Remdesivir requires expensive hospital care (hospital receives an additional $13k from Medicare.)
There have been many accounts of hospitals placing non covid patients on covid floors…increasing exposure and the hospital’s chance of cashing in more. This is why some hospitals refuse to allow family in. It’s not a “safety” protocol.
MHRA YELLOW CARD REPORTING SUMMARY UP TO 23rd NOVEMBER 2022 (Data published 1st Dec 2022)
Adult & Child – Primary, Third Dose & Boosters (mono/bivalent)
People in UK who have received one or more vaccine = 53,813,491
(Up to 11th Sept 2022)
Yellow Card Adverse Event Reports – 177,925 (Pfizer) + 246,866 (AZ) + 47,045 (Moderna) + 52 (Novavax = N) + 2130 (Unknown) = 474,018 people impacted incl. bivalent vaccines (increase of 3995 in 4 weeks)
Overall 1-in-114 people injected experiences a Yellow Card Adverse Event, which may be less than 10% of actual figures according to MHRA.
TOTAL DOSES administered – 94.4million (Pfizer) + 49.16m (AZ) + 25.3m (Moderna) = 168,859,700 doses incl. all booster programmes
All boosters = 64,259,700
• Pfizer – 32.5m (mono) & 9.7m (bivalent)
• Astrazeneca – 59,700
• Moderna – 13.1m (mono) & 8.9m (bivalent)
Adverse event report figures below INCLUDE both mono- and bivalent COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.
Booster Yellow Card Reports – 35,028 (Pfizer) + 655 (AZ) + 21,956 (Moderna) + 280 (Unknown) = 57,919
Reactions – 511,776 (Pfizer) + 874,912 (AZ) + 151,628 (Moderna) + 106 (Novavax = N) + 6508 (Unknown) = 1,544,930
Fatal – 857 (Pfizer) + 1334 (AZ) + 111 (Moderna) + 60 (Unknown) = 2362
Blood Disorders – 17,677 (Pfizer) + 7938 (AZ) + 2862 (Moderna) + 75 (Unknown) = 28,552
Anaphylaxis – 687 (Pfizer) + 888 (AZ) + 102 (Moderna) + 2 (N) + 3 (Unknown) = 1682
Acute Cardiac – 14,375 (Pfizer) + 11,813 (AZ) + 4177 (Moderna) + 5 (N) + 161 (Unknown) = 30,531
Eye Disorders – 8461 (Pfizer) + 15,107 (AZ) + 1939 (Moderna) + 105 (Unknown) = 25,612
Blindness – 180 (Pfizer) + 330 (AZ) + 46 (Moderna) + 5 (Unknown) = 561
Deafness – 331 (Pfizer) + 447 (AZ) + 70 (Moderna) + 6 (Unknown) = 854
Infections – 13,600 (Pfizer) + 20,951 (AZ) + 3160 (Moderna) + 5 (N) + 263 (Unknown) = 37,979
Herpes – 2341 (Pfizer) + 2725 (AZ) + 363 (Moderna) + 2 (N) + 30 (Unknown) = 5461
Spontaneous Abortions – 505 + 19 stillbirths/foetal deaths (Pfizer) + 240 + 6 stillbirths/foetal deaths (AZ) + 74 + 1 stillbirth (Moderna) +11 (Unknown) = 830 miscarriages
Gastrointestinal Disorders – 44,248 (Pfizer) + 81,396 (AZ) + 13,828 (Moderna) + 6 (N) + 506 (Unknown) = 139,984
Strokes and CNS hemorrhages – 878 (Pfizer) + 2429 (AZ) + 108 (Moderna) + 1 (N) + 27 (Unknown) = 3443
Nervous System Disorders – 84,728 (Pfizer) + 184,225 (AZ) + 24,827 (Moderna) + 16 (N) + 1088 (Unknown) = 294,884
Seizures – 1201 (Pfizer) + 2113 (AZ) + 340 (Moderna) + 34 (Unknown) = 3688
Paralysis – 553 (Pfizer) + 916 (AZ) + 148 (Moderna) + 15 (Unknown) = 1632
Vertigo & Tinnitus – 4426 (Pfizer) + 6935 (AZ) + 925 (Moderna) + 56 (Unknown) = 12,342
Respiratory Disorders – 23,064 (Pfizer) + 30,230 (AZ) + 5592 (Moderna) + 3 (N) + 279 (Unknown) = 59,168
Epistaxis (nosebleeds) – 1148 (Pfizer) + 2307 (AZ) + 240 (Moderna) + 12 (Unknown) = 3707
Psychiatric Disorders – 10,798 (Pfizer) + 18,699 (AZ) + 3025 (Moderna) + 1 (N) + 158 (Unknown) = 32,681
Skin Disorders – 35,879 (Pfizer) + 53,819 (AZ) + 15,036 (Moderna) + 7 (N) + 464 (Unknown) = 105,205
Reproductive/Breast Disorders – 31,789 (Pfizer) + 20,983 (AZ) + 5438 (Moderna) + 1 (N) + 271 (Unknown) = 58,482
Bell’s Palsy – 677 (Pfizer) + 646 (AZ) + 127 (Moderna) + 1 (N) + 3 (Unknown) = 1454
CHILDREN & YOUNG PEOPLE SPECIAL REPORT
Suspected side effects reported in individuals under 18yrs old
• Pfizer – 4,200,000 children (1st doses) + 2,900,000 (2nd doses) + 400,000(mono)/52,500(bivalent) boosters resulting in 4205 Yellow Cards
• AZ – 11,400 children (1st doses) + 8.500 (2nd doses) + ‘extremely limited boosters’ resulting in 267 Yellow Cards (reporting rate 1-in-43)
• Moderna – 2100 children (1st doses) + 2000 (2nd doses) + 32,400(mono)/1000(bivalent) boosters resulting in 39 Yellow cards
• Brand Unspecified – 37 Yellow Cards
Total = 4,213,700 children injected (under 18s)
Total doses (1st, 2nd & boosters) = 7,609,900
Total Yellow Cards Under 18s = 4548
For full reports including 387 pages of specific reaction listings – https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions
The Business of Breast Cancer: Mammogram Risks
Getting older is a complicated business. As we age, trips to the doctor increasingly conclude with requisitions for different screenings—tests meant to help diagnose potential problems and keep us healthy for the long haul.
Although many tests used to detect cancer have been hailed as life-saving miracles of modern medicine, some have a dark side. Concerns over the prolific use of mammograms for detecting breast cancer have been growing in the scientific community as journals publish research revealing these tests come with their own risks. With roughly seventy percent of women in the U.S. over forty having mammograms at least every two years, it raises questions about their safety, if information about potential dangers is being obscured, and who might really be benefitting from this widespread testing.
What if millions of women are fueling a billion-dollar industry with ever-increasing profits by using screening that not only hasn’t improved outcomes, but may be harming the women it is supposed to save?
Cancer in Our Society
Cancer is pervasive and widely feared due to its relentlessness, brutality, and the grueling nature of many cancer treatments. The National Cancer Institute spends billions on cancer research each year and cancer fundraisers are a perennial activity in our communities. Virtually every cancer has a month dedicated to its awareness. October is breast cancer awareness month, which it politely shares with liver cancer awareness in the United States.
As we get older, cancer is something we think about more and our doctors push us to get tests and screenings to make sure cancer cells haven’t been seeded in our bodies.
Breast cancer deeply frightens many women (and yes, men can get it too). If you happen to be considered high-risk, screenings may start as early as your twenties. In the United States, mammograms are considered the gold standard of testing for breast cancer and there are now both 2D and 3D varieties for women to choose from.
Mammograms use x-rays (a form of ionizing radiation) to take pictures of the breast. A machine is used where a woman places her breast between two plates or paddles where it is then compressed and x-ray images are captured.
In a 2D mammogram, two images are taken, one from the top and one from the side, creating a 2D picture.
3D, or tomosynthesis, is largely the same process, using slightly more radiation and capturing additional images, creating a three-dimensional picture of the breast.
Radiologists use the images to look for abnormalities, with breast cancer usually appearing as a white mass. If abnormalities are found, the patient is asked to come back for more tests, often an MRI, or to have a biopsy. Mammograms do not diagnose breast cancer. They look for abnormalities in the breast and can give the patient more information about their breast tissue, if masses are present, and if further investigation is needed. The only way to diagnose breast cancer after an abnormality is seen is to do a biopsy.
Mammography: What You Should Know
Mammography does, however, have risks that all women should be aware of. The two main concerns of mammography are radiation exposure and overdiagnosis.
Because mammography uses a type of ionizing radiation, it comes with inherent risk. We are all exposed to radiation every day. Some of that radiation, like the ultraviolet and infrared rays of the sun, is essential to our health (in appropriate doses). But we are well adapted to these natural, low levels of radiation. The same is not true of man-made radiation.
This is of concern because there are parts of the body that are particularly sensitive to radiation, and we should limit our exposure whenever possible. In fact, Cornell University’s Program on Breast Cancer Environmental Risk Factors states that “The female breast is known to be highly susceptible to the cancer-causing effects of radiation when exposure occurs before menopause.” A mammogram is also directing this radiation not only at the breast, but at the other organs inside the chest, like the heart and lungs.
A cohort study published in the British Journal of Cancer in 2012 followed more than 500,000 women from 1973 until 2009. The study found that women who had received radiation treatment for breast cancer (high energy x-rays) had a significant increase in heart disease and lung cancer in the decades after their treatment.
The study clearly demonstrates a progressive increase in both risk and mortality from radiation-related heart disease and lung cancer with time (into the third decade) after exposure to radiation.
The study is one of many to raise questions about routine mammograms for women at low risk of breast cancer.
The other issue with mammography is overdiagnosis. Overdiagnosis is a concern because mammograms can detect abnormalities that may not be cancer, or cancers that would have regressed on their own but are treated once they are discovered. That means many women are exposed to chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and surgery that may not have been not needed.
An article published in Public Health Research and Practice entitled What Is Overdiagnosis and Why Should We Take It Seriously? offers a very good explanation of what overdiagnosis is and why it is a problem, defining overdiagnosis this way:
“In cancer screening, overdiagnosed cancers are those that did not need to be found because they would not have produced symptoms or led to premature death.”
“Overdiagnosis in cancer screening arises largely from the paradoxical problem that screening is most likely to find the slow-growing or dormant cancers that are least likely to harm us, and less likely to find the aggressive, fast-growing cancers that cause cancer mortality. This central paradox has become clearer over recent decades. The more overdiagnosis is produced by a screening program, the less likely the program is to serve its ultimate goal of reducing illness and premature death from cancer.”
An article published in The Lancet in 2013 argued that two 30- to 35- year old randomized studies underestimated when they concluded that there was a 19 percent rate of overdiagnosis when screening with mammography.
The author, Per-Henrik Zahl, a researcher with the Norwegian Institute of Public Health who has looked at breast cancer overdiagnosis, argues that detection rates and the level of overdiagnosis have increased 100 percent or more as the sensitivity of mammograms has improved.
Zahl notes that when screening was introduced in Sweden and Norway there was a 50 percent increase in invasive breast cancer. The total increase in diagnosis in Norway was 75 percent. He concluded that almost all of the increase in cancer detection through screening was due to lesions that normally go into spontaneous regression.
A comparative study published in the journal BMC Women’s Health in 2009 set out to quantify overdiagnosis in the Danish mammography screening program. Denmark is unique as only 20 percent of the population has been offered mammography over an extended period. Incidence rates of carcinoma in situ (stage 0 breast cancer) and invasive breast cancer were collected in areas with and without screening over thirteen years, and twenty years before its introduction. The study found that in the screened women, the overdiagnosis rate was 33 percent.
A systematic review published in the British Medical Journal in 2009 tracked the incidence of breast cancer before and after the introduction of mammography screening in specific areas—the United Kingdom; Manitoba, Canada; New South Wales, Australia; Sweden and parts of Norway—both seven years before and seven years after public breast cancer screening programs were implemented. The review found that overdiagnosis was estimated at 52 percent and concluded that one in three breast cancers detected in a population offered screening was overdiagnosed.
As evidence of overdiagnosis has accumulated, it is now recognized as the most serious downside of population-wide breast screening.
What Women Think
One of the main concerns with mammograms is that women may not be warned about the potential risks and all the factors involved in breast cancer screening. A cross-sectional survey of 479 women in the United States, aged 18-97 published in the British Journal of Medicine set out to understand women’s attitudes to and knowledge of false-positive mammography results as well as the detection of ductal carcinoma in situ (a type of stage 0 breast cancer) after screening mammography.
Ductal carcinoma in situ is defined as the presence of abnormal cells inside the milk duct in the breast. DCIS is considered an early form of breast cancer. DCIS is non-invasive, meaning it is still isolated and has not spread out of the milk duct and has a low risk of becoming invasive.
The survey concluded that women were aware of false positives, seeming to view them as an acceptable consequence of screening mammography. In contrast, most women were unaware that screening can detect cancers that may never progress (ductal carcinoma in situ) and felt that that information was relevant.
The study also found that only 8 percent of women thought mammography could harm a woman without breast cancer and 94 percent did not realize (doubted) that mammograms could detect cancers that might not progress. Few of the women in the study knew about ductal carcinoma in situ, but 60 percent of the women wanted to take into account the possibility that any cancer detected may not progress.
Another study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in 2013 looked at overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer, and what physicians were telling patients about the risks of screening, specifically the possibility of overdiagnosis and overtreatment.
Less than 10 percent said they were told about the risks of mammograms by their physicians. Little more than half (51 percent) said they would not agree to screening if it resulted in one overtreated person per one life saved. These numbers imply that millions of Americans might not choose to be screened if they knew the whole story, but unfortunately, 90 percent are not getting that information.
The Cancer Industry Recommendations
In the United States, mammograms are the standard screening used to detect breast cancer, and doctors usually begin speaking to their women patients about mammograms at around age forty.
Both The American College of Radiology and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommend women begin annual mammograms at age forty. The American Cancer Society recommends annual screenings begin at 45 (then once every other year after 55), and The US Preventative Services Task Force recommends women begin mammograms every other year at age fifty.
Mammograms are approved by the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) which regulates the standards for mammography machines and the people who provide them. The FDA has also released several warnings about using thermography instead of mammograms, reminding the public that mammography is still the most effective primary breast cancer screening test.
Do Regular Mammograms Lead to Better Outcomes?
The question becomes, do regular mammograms lead to better outcomes? Well, it would depend on how you define better outcomes. If we are talking about detecting breast cancer, it seems the answer is most certainly yes. Mammograms seem an excellent tool for detecting breast cancer. But, if we define better outcomes as fewer women dying of breast cancer, then we seem to have entered a different territory.
An article, “Mammograms and Mortality: How Has the Evidence Evolved?” published in 2021 noted that a previous meta-analysis of mammogram studies revealed that mammograms have led to no significant reduction in all-cause mortality (death from any cause) for women of any age group. The article, by Amanda Kowalski, a health economist and the Gail Wilensky Professor of Applied Economics and Public Policy at the University of Michigan Department of Economics, also notes that some trials even show imprecise increases in all-cause mortality across all age groups or within an age group. These findings were based on eight large randomized controlled trials that combined included over 600,000 women.
A very large Canadian randomized screening trial published in the British Medical Journal followed nearly 90,000 women aged 40-59 over 25 years, who were considered at average risk for breast cancer. One group of women received routine mammograms, and the other did not. The somewhat surprising results were that mortality rates in both groups were almost identical. The overall conclusion of the study was that annual mammography in women aged 40-59 does not reduce mortality from breast cancer any better than a physical examination. The study also noted that they found the overdiagnosis rate among the mammography participants was 22 percent.
An analysis published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine in 2015 concluded that mammograms have been promoted to the public with three promises that all seem to be wrong. The first is that they save lives, the second is that they save breasts, and the third is that they catch cancer early. The author, Peter C Gøtzsche, formerly with the Nordic Cochrane Center and co-founder of the influential Cochrane Collaboration, states that mammogram screenings do not help women live longer, increase mastectomies, and many cancers are still caught at a very late stage.
It’s a sentiment other researchers have also expressed.
“The time has come to reassess whether universal mammographic screening should be recommended for any age group because the declines in breast cancer mortality can be ascribed mainly to improved treatments and breast cancer awareness; currently, we see that screening has only a minor effect on mortality (if any),” researchers from Nordic Cochrane Centre wrote in the journal Radiology in 2011.
In 2013, the Swiss Medical Board—an independent health technology assessment initiative—was asked to prepare a review of mammography screening. After a panel reviewed the available evidence—and contemplated its implications in detail—they were extremely concerned. The Swiss Medical Board’s report was released on Feb. 2, 2014, and acknowledged that systematic mammography screening might prevent about one death from breast cancer for every one thousand women screened, even though there was no evidence that overall mortality was affected. It also emphasized the harm caused by mammography, specifically false-positive test results and the risk of overdiagnosis. The report cites the following statistics, from a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association:
“For every breast-cancer death prevented in U.S. women over a 10-year course of annual screening beginning at 50 years of age, 490 to 670 women are likely to have a false positive mammogram with repeat examination; 70 to 100, an unnecessary biopsy; and 3 to 14, an overdiagnosed breast cancer that would never have become clinically apparent.”
Based on their findings, the board recommended that no new systematic mammography screening programs be introduced in Switzerland and that a time limit be placed on existing programs in the country, phasing them out entirely.
(On the New England Journal of Medicine’s website you can listen to an interview the journal conducted with Dr. Mette Kalager on the Swiss Board’s recommendation and learn more about why they recommended phasing out routine mammography screening.)
The Nordic Cochrane Centre, thought to be one of the world’s best and least biased research institutions, conducted a systematic review to assess the effect of screening for breast cancer with mammography on mortality and morbidity. The trials they looked at included 600,000 women aged 39-74 years. The conclusions, published in 2013, are as follows:
“If we assume that screening reduces breast cancer mortality by 15 percent and that overdiagnosis and overtreatment is at 30 percent, it means that for every 2,000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will avoid dying of breast cancer and 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treated unnecessarily. Furthermore, more than 200 women will experience important psychological distress including anxiety and uncertainty for years because of false positive findings.”
The study’s authors, Peter C Gøtzsche and Karsten Juhl Jørgensen, state that women should be fully informed of both the benefits and harms. They went so far as to write an evidence-based leaflet in several languages to help women understand the risks.
The Mammography Industry-Projected Earnings
What might perhaps be interesting to know is that mammography is a multi-billion dollar industry.
In September 2022, Vantage Market Research released a report that projected earnings for the mammography market would be from US $1.8 billion in 2021 to $3.2 billion by 2028.
Growing markets in Asia will provide most of that expansion. The report attributes the huge growth in the region to the existence of a significant number of mammography companies, and the high adoption rate due to government measures that stimulate the industry and increasing collaborations between the mammography industry and governments in the region.
Success when it comes to breast cancer really depends on the outcome we are trying to achieve. If it is early detection, then we seem to be doing a stellar job. But if our goal is lowering mortality rates, we seem to be in a gray zone and possibly moving backwards. With the present technology—and its increasing sensitivity—we seem to have created many more cancer patients, perhaps unnecessarily, and are keeping women in the dark about the dangers.
Michael Baum, a Professor Emeritus of Surgery and a visiting Professor of Medical Humanities at University College London (UCL), is a British surgical oncologist specializing in breast cancer treatment and one of the architects of Britain’s national breast screening program.
Baum went from being one of the most determined supporters of breast cancer screening to one of its most vocal opponents.
In his book, “The History and Mystery of Breast Cancer,” he explains why.
“The largest threat posed by American medicine is that more and more of us are being drawn into the system not because of an epidemic of disease, but because of an epidemic of diagnoses. The real problem with the epidemic of diagnoses is that it leads to an epidemic of treatments. Not all treatments have important benefits, but almost all can have harms.”
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times. Epoch Health welcomes professional discussion and friendly debate. To submit an opinion piece, please follow these guidelines and submit through our form here.
Meditation is a natural relaxation state of the mind and is considered to be most important mental exercise to practice during our lifetime. Meditation is actually our natural state and our connection to the Divine.
Mindfulness can be practice all the time by simply focusing on the current moment, not yesterday or tomorrow but the present moment.
The proper way to meditate is just start. You will develop a practice over time but start with what works for you. Sitting in a chair or floor with good posture, close your eyes, take 5–10 slow deep breaths, following your breath. Your relaxing your mind so try not to think of anything. Just focus on a point in the front of eyes. You will find your thoughts drifting to problems just bring the focus back to the point in front of the eyes. The time you meditate is up to you.
Make meditation part of your life and you will see the world anew.
J6 Political Prisoner; And We Know; Save The Children; The Higher View
Coming up on this episode of Alison at Large: A one-on-one with J6 political prisoner Jake Lang. We will remember the infamous day and discuss the new book he has released behind bars. Plus a shocking ruling out of new Zealand… Regarding pedophilia. And “to censor or not to censor”… That is the question… And Elon Musk’s latest maneuver may shock you. And B.M.W. introduces you to a car with a ‘digital soul.’
Jake Lang J6 Political Prisoner, “To censor or not to censor” and Cars with “Souls”
Why hasn’t Ray Ebbs Been Arrested?
And We Know
1.7.23: Trump in CONTROL, DS losing their grip, Huge WIN, Art of the DEAL playing out. PRAY!
Save The Children
The Higher View
The Higher View is a brand-new show using The View as a format. If you are a fan or not a fan of The View which has been on for 25 years. We have taken the show format to a Higher Consciousness perspective. Our first show aired live yesterday. Please check it out and share. It is time that Humanity moves to a Higher Consciousness together. Awake 2 Oneness Radio: https://www.awake2onenessradio.org/
Truth On MSM
The Media is not covering the Twitter Files; Interview with Whitney Webb; Huge Supreme Court Case; Police in the UK Arrest a Woman for Silently Praying
TURLEY: The Media is not covering the Twitter Files and the reason why is because they’re heavily invested in this scandal, they’re heavily invested in Hunter Biden — many of these news outlets only recently just acknowledged the laptop is authentic — 2 years later!
“What’s disturbing is what’s on the [Hunter Biden] laptop – hundreds of emails detailing an influence peddling scheme that is breathtaking. Influence peddling is common in D.C. but I’ve been in this town for 3 decades, and I’ve never seen anything come close to what the Biden’s did.”
Interview with Whitney Webb, professional writer, researcher and journalist since 2016 regarding the Clintons and more.
Prepare to have your mind blown
Huge Supreme Court Case
This is how you take down the wall. United we stand Divided we fall
Police in the UK arrest a woman for silently praying:
“Are you praying?” “I might be praying in my head.”